[patmorgan23]

In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to respond and counter.

The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness.

And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.

[hackernewds]

You could definitely argue the jury are humans are public opinions are easily swayed by emotion

[hackernewds]

What is the alternate form of justice, if not adversarial?

[hotnfresh]

Another big one is the inquisitorial system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

[stock_toaster]

Nobody ever expects this one.

[fransje26]

Guilty until proven innocent VS. Innocent until proven guilty..

[Woshiwuja]

why does the US still use common people during jury is beyond me tho

[specialist]

Perhaps we need more more specialized courts.

My local jurisdiction has separate tracks for both vets and addicts. Because handling those cases in the "normal" court is inefficient and unproductive. (eg Most addicts need treatment, not jail time. Vets specific care, not jail time.)

IIRC, there's a separate bankruptcy court. Sounds smart. I don't expect laypersons to understand finance and such.

Methinks we need separate courts for both intellectual property and healthcare. Where the "jury of one's peers" is composed of actual domain expert peers.

[Woshiwuja]

Is the jury decision final or can the judge ignore it? For example, why is the jury even involved in a murder trial?

[specialist]

To adjudicate.